Meghan Markle & Prince Harry’s Archewell Foundation: What You Should Know

  • The Archewell Foundation was first mentioned six months ago, and it’s now finally ready to go live.
  • What exactly is the non-profit? What is its purpose? And who will benefit?
  • These are the questions I’m looking to answer!

Over six months ago, we first heard talk of the Archewell foundation that Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were planning.

The non-profit, revealed by The Telegraph, was initially described by Meghan and Harry as:

[An organization] to do something of meaning, to do something that matters.

At the time, I remember thinking it was all terribly vague and quite hard to understand.

Why Archewell? What was the purpose of the non-profit? What plans did the Sussexes have for the future?

And more importantly, was it legit?

Of course, the Netflix deal, the Zoom calls, the Fortune and TIME webinars hadn’t happened at that time.

We really had no idea the route that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle would be taking.

Over six months on, as the couple finally launch the foundation, we have a bit more of an idea of what Harry and Meghan are all about post-royal life.

In this article, I’ll answer some of the questions I’ve seen asked about the foundation and provide my take on what I believe we can expect moving forward.

The new Archewell site is now live! | Source: Twitter

Why Archewell?

Somewhat ironically, considering the amount of vacuous word-salad nonsense we’ve had from Meghan Markle and Prince Harry of late, the term Archewell is derived from a Greek word which translates as “source of action.”

While I completely understand the connection with baby Archie, I do shudder to think of the Sussexes thinking of themselves as a source of action.

A source of buzzword nonsense? Absolutely. But action? Well, that remains to be seen if I’m honest.

What is the purpose of the new project?

This is where things get interesting. Or not, as it may be.

I’m sure most people have heard the saying “a jack of all trades, and a master of none,” right?

Well, this seems to be the case with the Archewell foundation.

According to the initial reveal by the Telegraph:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are working on plans to run emotional support groups, a multi-media educational empire, and even launch a wellbeing website under a new non-profit organization named Archewell. According to paperwork filed in the United States last month, the couple are considering how to create their own charity and volunteering services, wide-ranging website, and sharing “education and training materials” via films, podcasts, and books.

The description continued:

Plans, which so far include trademark requests for everything from motion picture films to paperclips, are far more extensive than those originally intended under Sussex Royal in the UK.

Wait, what?

So, there isn’t really a defined purpose to the project?

Apparently not. However, I’m willing to give it some time and see if there’s any actual rhyme or reason to the aims of the Archewell foundation.

You see, the problem I have is that most foundations have a defined purpose.

When you think of non-profits, you’re likely to immediately recognize the likes of Amnesty International, which is focused on human rights. Or Greenpeace, which shines a light on environmental problems and their effects on the planet.

Both very easy to identify and laser-focused on an actionable goal.

Prince Harry should know all about non-profit organizations, being as he has been involved in The Foundation of Prince William and Prince Harry.

Not the most catchy name, I agree, but it doesn’t take long to see that it focuses on causes both Princes hold close to their hearts.

Prince William and at-risk/disadvantaged youths, and Prince Harry with veteran/armed forces member support.

For whatever reason, Archewell has none of the clarity that the most successful non-profits seem to offer.

Confusingly, there’s even talk that Meghan Markle plans to incorporate aspects of her old blog and provide information on “nutrition, general health, and mental health.”

There’s also talk of “classes, lectures, seminars, conferences, workshops, and retreats on a variety of topics” and hosting “events and exhibitions for cultural, sporting, health, mental health, and entertainment purposes.”

If you’re feeling a little lost by now, trust me, you’re not alone.

Has there been anything happening with Archewell from April until now?

Although the organization hasn’t had any official internet presence until now, Meghan Markle claims that work has been going on quietly behind the scenes for some time now.

If you’re hoping this information will provide some much-needed insight into what Archewell will actually be doing? Think again.

Meghan commented at the recent Fortune summit:

Part of our focus with the Archewell Foundation is to just ensure that we are helping foster healthy positive communities ― online and off ― for our collective wellbeing.

Well, that clears that up, doesn’t it?

Archewell into the future – what’s on the agenda?

Hearing the Sussexes plans for the organization’s future gives me a little hope that we may see something resembling a defined plan of action.

And what would that focus on? Humane tech.

Now, Meghan was quick to admit that neither she nor Simply Harry are anywhere close to being tech experts:

Hosting a special edition of the Time100 Talks yesterday, Meghan, 39, admitted that while she and Harry ‘don’t speak tech’, they ‘know the experience of being a human being and the pain and suffering and joy that has come from this worldwide web.

In case you didn’t quite pick up on the couple not “speaking tech,” the fact that they referred to the internet as “this worldwide web” in the same way as our grandparents tend to do speaks volumes.

The fact they’re focusing on “this worldwide web” still unsettles me a little, as much of what the former royals say sounds a whole lot like advocating censorship.

They don’t like people saying bad things about them online, so they think it shouldn’t be allowed.

Internet censorship is at the heart of the Archewell Foundation at the moment

The gist of their conversation with Tristan Harris of The Social Dilemma Netflix documentary (you see the cozy little Netflix link there?) is that the tech companies have to step up and self-regulate their platforms, or governments have to come in and impose restrictions.

The Social Dilemma advocates internet censorship. | Source: Twitter

Now, aside from the fact that I’m absolutely astounded someone supposedly as progressive as Tristan Harris would effectively call for government censure of the internet, it’s obvious why Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are pushing for this line of action.

They have long demanded that they be allowed to curate the content made available about them online. They’ve already tried to do this with traditional media.

In conclusion, I fear that Archewell, no matter how the Hollywood royals dress it up, is nothing more than a vehicle to allow the couple to push their internet censorship agenda.

If we cut through all of the buzzwords and nonsense, what Meghan Markle and Prince Harry want is an internet landscape devoid of criticism for them.

If they genuinely wished to rid the digital sphere of hate and vitriol, they’d have denounced their very own Sussex Squad fans a long time ago.

That they haven’t speaks volumes.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of

25 thoughts on “Meghan Markle & Prince Harry’s Archewell Foundation: What You Should Know”

  1. Such a laugh ! Move out of the U.K. to avoid social media , protect their son , live a private life .!!!
    Hence ” Archwell ” laughable !!

  2. Actually, foundations are not focused on a singular issue. They tend to support issues spanning multiple sectors. For example, have a look at the Gates foundation, the Kellogg foundation etc. Your criticism, in that regard, is ill-informed and not justified. But, what’s new! “Trusted journalist”, indeed.

    • True that other foundations has support for multiple issues but other foundations like Gates foundation have clear and defined aims and purposes within those multiple issues that they support and has the actual plans on how they are going to achieved those purposes. Archewell foundation meanwhile has lack of transparency and has no defined purposes at all. What social issues does Archewell foundation intend to tackle and what are their plans to achieve that? It is not stated in their website however and that is a difference.

  3. If you leave your FAMILY, COUNTRY, and LIFE so your son can grow up normally as a private citizen, you DO NOT NAME YOUR (supposedly) GLOBAL CHARITY AFTER HIM. They’re disgusting. First, they want to have privacy…but every time they speak it always turns into a discussion of their personal lives. They put out an “official portrait”—what the hell? Who does that? Nobody does that. Except the family they ditched. And, again with all their talk about protecting their child, they manage to drop tidbits about him in their zoom “appearances” as often as they think necessary to spike their headlines. Who does that? Nobody does that. Even the family they left are more judicious about what, when, and how much detail about their children are appropriate to share—and I mean appropriate for the children, not determining how much extra press the kids will get them.

  4. Bears repeating:
    “If they genuinely wished to rid the digital sphere of hate and vitriol, they’d have denounced their very own Sussex Squad fans a long time ago.
    That they haven’t speaks volumes.”

  5. As always Aubrey you’ve got the nail on the head! I will add that the reason they can’t focus on one is because they want to be able switch it up to whatever is popular at the moment. BLM is not an organization our family would ever support we have traditional values and what chaos it is bringing world wide is a crying shame and it has nothing to do with color of people but everything to do with disregard to family life, law and order and what protesting should look like is not what BLM is bringing to the table. To be quite honest I would NOT support anything of Harry & Meghan’s ventures, the trust isn’t there for either of them, nor do they bring anything of value to the table!! I’ll stick with my go to organizations and I haven’t canceled Netflix (yet) but I’m heading in that direction. These two are really quite the act it’s been a long time since I’ve seen someone trying so hard to stay in the limelight but offering absolutely nothing. Well yes I can Joe Biden has been running that course here in the United States…….

  6. Terrible how many people can throw so much hate at a couple and a person without even knowing them personally. The world has so many problems already but people focus their time in negativity and hate. Sad state really and speaks volumes of people’s mindset, all this hate cant be good for you

    • Julia, you are confusing Freedom of speech with hate. I was born behind the Iron Courtain and I fought in 1989 for the freedom of speech, among other things. The right to speak my mind and criticise public people is a right I have earned risking my life. I won’t it give away, no matter how long Meghan Markle and her ilk will call it hate, trolling, negativity, you name it. If the Sussexes want the criticism to stop, they should pursue a private life, outside public space and social media. Simple.

    • You are completely hysterical with your comment so tone it down a bit. First, these 2 are marketing themselves to be change maker, leaders and philanthropist. They are marketing themselves to have followers to listen to their speeches and to donate to their foundation. When you put yourself as a public figure, they will be scrutinise to make sure that what they are doing is valid. Are you saying if there is a cult like scientology, should people keep quite and not criticise so that they are not called haters. If we are called haters for calling out on these 2 for doing things that are self-serving then so be it.

      • Joan There is something very interesting about bullies that make them special. You see, a bully is a coward; the bully is terribly afraid of the world around him, and he can’t stop himself from being in fear all the time. It is something organic that he can’t control. That is why the bully seems to have no discipline and never listen to authority or authoritarian commands. Now, another very interesting thing about the bully is that, as he is a coward, he needs to erase this feeling of panic of the world, by regaining control over reality. And the only way to do this is by picking the weakest link he can find, that is, the one that will not fight back, the safer victim around. This, however, does not mean that the victim is hopeless, weak or guilty of anything. The bully simply selects a target for his suppressed fear.

        • I don’t know what you are on about with your philosophy about the bully but if you are implying that I am a bully then, you live in a delusional world. I am confident to report to you that I don’t have any of the characteristic that you describe in your post and that my conscience is clear. So go and lives your own life with your own conscience instead of accusing others because obviously you are projecting yourself onto others.

        • I agree, bullies are cowards. That is why Meghan always runs, tail between legs, after she takes a potshot. Great example: that nasty little announcement of their exit, with which they bushwhacked the Queen and the Royal Family without any warning.

          The next morning, did Meghan stay for the discussion with the Queen, and be a calm, responsible adult? No. She ran to Canada, leaving Harry to face the music. What a cowardly little bully.

          I strongly suspect that even if there was no pandemic, she would not be going to spend Christmas with the Queen. For all her outward bravado, Meghan is a coward. She can bully the elderly Queen behind her back, but she doesn’t have what it takes to look her in the face.

    • @ Julia I doubt many people actually hate Meghan and Harry. They are just despised, which is quite different. From all accounts, it seems likely that many who do know them personally do not think much of them either. The Sussexes attract comment because what they say and what they do unfortunately can be regarded as hypocritical, self-serving, and insincere. And being passive-aggressive is definitely not good for you.

    • It isn’t hate to point out that Archewell has no clear stated function, direction or goal. And that it is impossible to support a “charity” in which none of these things are clear.

      It isn’t hate to point out that there is a real danger of email addresses and other personal information to be used in insidious and unethical means. So giving your info to Archewell, when you don’t even know what you’re being asked to support, exposes you to that risk. It is THEIR job to FIRST tell you what they are going to do and how you can support. It is not fair of them to ask you for your personal info (aka email address) without informing you what you are going to get. That is common sense.

      It isn’t hate to point out that Meghan and Harry do not have expertise in the areas they have been vocal about, such as poverty, race relations, elections, travel and tourism, women’s education, content production, etc, etc etc. They also have no experience in managing and running a charity foundation. Meghan is a former actress, so her expertise is acting. Harry was a soldier. So what are they selling, if they don’t have expertise, that makes them legit?

      Why is all that hate?

      So irrational.

    • Hey Megan is that you? If these were positive comments, you’d be all for social media. Go to Africa like the Queen and Harry wanted you to do. Poor Harry.

  7. So far this Archewell is nothing but an empty shell with no relevant information. In short, an email harvesting website. Mailing email lists are big business so I wonder whether the website purpose is just that, collecting and selling email addresses. Archewell is in breach of privacy laws in terms of the ability to withdraw a person’s own email address, and to prevent its sale.

  8. I would never donate a penny to any charity linked to them as I do not believe anyone but them would benefit from the cash. I wish the British charities still sadly involved with them would ditch them as well. They do not have an original thought between them.

  9. It is appalling what these 2 are up to. I thought we don’t live in North Korea or live under dictatorship. The censorship of free speech is very much the violation of human rights. Who is going to be responsible for this suggested censorship and who is qualified to be deciding what is appropriate and what is not appropriate to put online. This censorship will lead to misinformation more so than without it. I do agree that there are trolls out there that bully and abuse people, however, using social media is a choice and people have a choice to simply turn off their social media account and walk away from it. I think education to youth about dangers of internet and how to deal with it will be more productive than censoring the social media by the government or the tech company.

  10. Aubrey, H&M are all over the place. Your “jack-of-all-trades, master of none, ” is a perfect description of these two. Truthfully, I think they are running scared with the blowup of Sussex Royal and Meghan’s plans of a bigtime acting career coming to nothing. They are like teenagers that don’t know what they are doing, jumping from thing to thing hoping they will hit paydirt. It’s painful to watch.

    This Archewell Foundation is odd because it has to be funded with big money contributions. It’s hard to believe this will happen without a clear purpose. Charitable causes are in competition with one another. People are more likely to contribute to cancer research than vague “helping foster healthy positive communities.” I mean, what the hell? “Emotional support groups, wellbeing, multi-media educational empire?” Now you all know why I go on these California rants.

    • Irene Grow Up Happy people don’t occupy their mind space with other people’s lives because they are busy chasing their own dreams, setting their own goals, and directing their focus on matters of higher integrity.

      • Public figures who live in the public sphere are open to criticize, particularly if they have been or are being supported by public money, since that makes them accountable for their actions to the citizens whose taxes they use. The media’s role is to play watchdog, and intelligent citizens criticize when warranted. And this is healthy public discourse. Happy people do participate in this discourse, which is an essential part of life in a healthy democracy. Grownup Irene is exercising her freedom to critique and opine. You, on the other hand, are judging her — and she is a private person, unlike H&M who are public personalities. The problem is with you.


Leave a Comment